Wednesday, February 19, 2014

There is a grand silence in the traditionalists camp. The liberals too are hoping this is a bad dream- something which will pass away.

It's something Archbishop Lefebvre overlooked. He simply thought that those saved with the baptism of desire were relevant to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.He overlooked the obvious.

Generations of Catholics over some 70 years have made the same mistake.Even the great apologists overlooked it.

Here is the great Archbishop Lefebvre not noticing the obvious. It's a red mark for a Philosophy student.

We must say it clearly: such a concept is radically opposed to Catholic dogma. The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it. You have often heard it said, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”--a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe...

The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.

The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.-Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (1)

So what if they are saved in their religion? Is this relevant to the dogma on salvation. Is this an exception ?

Yes it is for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops and priests!

They have assumed that implicit for us baptism of desire is explicit for us and so is an exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation. It is a fact of life that we cannot see any baptism of desire case in 2014. Objectively we cannot see the dead.

This error was then extended to Vatican Council II. The same error was also made by the liberals.It is based on this error that Cardinal Kaspar says that Vatican Council II is ambigous.

The same error was made by Michael Treharne Davies (13 March 1936 – 25 September 2004). He was a British teacher, and traditionalist Catholic writer of many books about the Catholic Church following the Second Vatican Council. From 1992 to 2004 he was the President of the international Traditionalist Catholic organisation Foederatio InternationalisUna Voce and was responsible for the unification of Una Voce America.

Davies was a Baptist who converted to Catholicism while still a student in the 1950s.Initially he was a supporter of the Second Vatican Council. He later supported the French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the Society of St. Pius X, and declined to retract that support after Lefebvre illicitly consecrated four bishops in 1988 against the wishes of Pope John Paul II,which some said "sanitised" Lefebvre. (2)

Michael Davis assumed that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

He held the same position as the SSPX i.e invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

He came to this conclusion through his interpretation of Pope Pius XII in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston ?

He never ever supported the traditional position of Fr.Leonard Feeney who said all need to enter the Catholic Church with no known, explicit exceptions in the present times?

He never ever said that the baptism of desire is always implicit for us and never explicit?

For him the baptism of desire, as it is for the SSPX priests, was always explicit?

Since he assumed that what is invisible is visible, like the SSPX bishops, he assumed that all salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II is explicit for us and so a break with the dogma on exclusive salvation and Tradition in general?The error is there on the SSPX website.(3) Remember we can accept implicit baptism of desire and reject explicit for us baptism of desire. So we are still affirming the baptism of desire as a possibility.We are not denying the baptism of desire.The SSPX website is affirming explicit for us baptism of desire and assuming that these cases are visible exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma by Fr.Leonard Feeney. Invisible baptism of desire can be affirmed along with the need for all to be visible members of the Catholic Church. (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441).There is no contradiction once the distinction is made between what is visible and invisible for us.

Michael Voris refers to the lunatics and heretics. I do not know in which camp would he put the third group.

The THIRD GROUP of Catholics are those well meaning good Catholics who say they can see the dead saved in Heaven. They imply they know persons saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire who are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

So they hold the literal traditional position of extra ecclesiam nulla salus which says all need to enter the Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell and ALSO say that there are explicit exceptions in the present times.

This is the position of Michael Voris and Simon Rafe at Church Militant TV. It is the position of the English traditionalist Michael Davis. His followers in the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX), the Roman Theological Forum, Rorate Caeili, Remnant etc.

This is an irrationality. It is also a lie. The Holy Spirit cannot teach error.

This group of traditionalists hold on to Tradition and reject Vatican Council II because they can see the dead.If some one in public indicated that they could see the dead, in which of the two categories would he be placed? They do not claim that this is an apparition. They also reject apparitions which the Church has still not condemned.

This group means well but are a problem for Catholics who say that they are traditionalists and they interpret Vatican Council II with no ambiguity and not as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Michael Voris for example will say that all need to enter the Church but he will not deny that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not exceptions to the dogma. So in Vatican Council II there are exceptions to Tradition for him.

Then this group, on Religious Liberty have accepted again the view of Michael Davis. Other traditionalists disagree. They affirm Dignitatis Humanae in agreement with Tradition, on Religious Liberty.

Michael Davis was objectively wrong on Vatican Council II and other religions and Christian communities. Could he also not be wrong on Religious Liberty?

It is irrational, to claim that all need to enter the Church for salvation and then to suggest that Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition, since those saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16) etc are visible in the flesh exceptions to the dogma on salvation.-Lionel Andrades

Our Crusade was begun by Father Leonard Feeney, who strove to combat the liberalizing of Catholic dogma which he saw as a major impediment to the conversion of America. The choice of the word “Crusade” to describe our mission is no accident. “The life of man upon earth is a warfare” declared Holy Job (Job 7:1). St. Paul admonishes us to arm ourselves with spiritual weapons to fight the enemies of our souls (Eph. 6:11-17). While every Catholic is called upon to fight the world, the flesh, and the devil, our battle also engages them specifically in the forces of the Revolution 1 ,many of which have entered the very precincts of the Church.

Our methods are threefold: personal sanctification, education, and works of the apostolate.

For Religious members, personal sanctification comes by way of our prayer life, our Marian Total Consecration, and living the vows and virtues of the religious life. Our Third Order members also live the Marian Total Consecration, and are joined to the congregation by simple promises.

Our educational work takes place in several ways. One is the Saint Augustine Institute, a program of continuing Catholic education which has the goal of forming apostles to work for the conversion of America. Another is the running of primary and secondary schools (such as Immaculate Heart of Mary School in Richmond, New Hampshire). We believe very strongly that one must be a reservoir before he can be an aqueduct. For this reason, we promote continuing study of the Faith as one way to spread it.

As religious, the works of our apostolate include the publishing of books, pamphlets, and our quarterly journal, From the Housetops. We reach out to the “man on the street” with our publications by distributing them door-to-door in an effort to spread the faith. Another very important aspect of our apostolate is the work of fostering Catholic community life. At Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, our religious brothers and sisters work with Third Order members and other faithful to build and maintain a thriving Catholic culture. The community provides both an atmosphere conducive to wholesome family life and a hub of missionary activity to convert this nation.

We are dedicated not only to the Deposit of Faith in its integrity and to sound Catholic morals, but also to the western liturgical patrimony of the Church as we have it in the traditional Roman Rite Mass (the “Extraordinary Form”) and the other sacramental rites associated with it.

We invite readers to learn more about our founder, our history, our Crusade, and its methods by reading the offerings in this section. The most common questions would be answered by reading these two postings:

We use the word “Revolution” as it was employed by the Venerable Emmanuel d’Alzon: a personification of all those elements in this world which oppose the Church, as embodied in the French Revolution. Father d’Alzon’s “Revolution” is virtually synonymous with Father Fahey’s “Organized Naturalism.” ↩

Monsignor Lorenzo Leuzzi, the head of the Department for Pastoral Care (Pastorale per Salute) for the Sick, of the Vicariate of Rome, will not comment on a subject related to Catholic religious and lay persons working in Catholic hospitals and institutions in Rome.There is confusion on a faith issue.

I had e-mailed and faxed him asking him what is the position of his department regarding a doctrinal question which was referred to on the website of the Vicariate Pastoral Care for the Sick.The website when teaching the Catholic Faith stated that all need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation except for those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.These were exceptions.

I had asked him to clarify this point since we do not know any one in the present times who will receive salvation or has received salvation with the baptism of desire etc.Did he agree with me I asked ?

The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were only possibilities and were not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or to Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) which says all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.

If he says there are exceptions it means he can see ghosts or spirits. This would be a lie. Since neither can he or the others at the Vicariate see the dead who are saved.Also the Holy Spirit would not teach an irrationality.

I hoped that he believed that there were no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or Ad Gentes 7.

Secondly, I asked, since we do not know anyone who has received salvation in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), seeds of the Word (AG 11), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2), these cases are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus or to Ad Gentes 7 , Vatican Council II ?

Thirdly, those who had received salvation through Jesus and the Church (Catechism of the Catholic Church 846) in other religions , are known only to God. These cases are possibilities but not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441)

I sent this message to Monsgr. Leuzzi also through persons whom he knows and is in contact with.It is over two months and I have not received an acknowledgement of my communication and neither has he explained his departments position on this issue.It is not known what would be the doctrinal position on this religious issue, of Catholic doctors, nurses, patients in hospitals, religious sisters and chaplains in Rome.